Saturday, June 22, 2013

Cambridge feminists on display

The feminists at Cambridge University are running a campaign in which their supporters hold up little whiteboards explaining why they have chosen to be feminists. (Hat tip: Laura Wood)

Here's a selection. Let me know which one you like the best.
















37 comments:

  1. The lunatic is on the grass...

    ..got to keep the loonies on the path.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Um... Without Feminism some guy wouldn't feel safe kissing his boyfriend in public? How does this work?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The best looking ones are probably the ones who say girls rule and boys suck. So therefore I'd say that's my favourite. Also it's kind of cute, like Lucy van Pelt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, the sad sack first guy who doesn't want to be held to a standard of masculinity because he doesn't think he'd pass muster gets points for honesty.

    And the guy with the flowers in his hair and long green fingernails does the "absurdist" thing very well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You somehow put them up to that to illustrate your theories.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, the sad sack first guy who doesn't want to be held to a standard of masculinity because he doesn't think he'd pass muster gets points for honesty.

    I don't think that's what he meant. Read it literally.

    ReplyDelete
  7. These people are as alien to me as well aliens.
    There isn't an issue with them until they start to force this thinking on other people.
    Which seems to be the commonality in leftist politics. They are not satisfied with others taking a different lifestyle direction. They need to make their thinking legal and state enforced.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Compare the Cambridge feminists to the French Antigone feminines. Which group is a better advertisement for their gender?

    Just askin'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I need feminism because I'm a lesbian" - there's an honest one! >:)
    Feminism often hurts normal women, but is generally beneficial for lesbians IME. Since lesbians are only a couple % of the female population it's still not a good thing overall on any Utilitarian calculus.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anyway, I generally think it's ok for people to pursue their own self-interest (within broad limits, eg no genocide) in the marketplace of ideas. It's a very bad thing when group X in pursuing its own self-interest tries to stop rival group Y from pursuing its self-interest. So, eg I'm ok with lesbians pursuing their self-interest, and eg arguing for government policies that benefit them. I'm not ok with lesbians trying to stop heterosexual men or traditionally oriented women from articulating and pursuing their own interests likewise.

    I think even though I'm coming from a broadly Utilitarian perspective, I disagree strongly with the Classical Liberals; the C-Libs seem to think *nobody* should articulate their self-interest as a group, but only as atomised individuals. Because we are social creatures this doesn't work and ends up worse for everyone than a traditionally oriented society with communal constraints on selfish individualism.

    That brings up a final point - I was raised an atheist by atheist parents. But I'm trying to give my son a future by bringing him up with Christian values and belief as best I can without lying*; I can see that atheism is a moral void and an evolutionary dead end. I'm helped that he's at a school with a strong Christian ethos, and it actually seems to be working pretty well so far. I tried searching for tips on this - but on the whole Internet there is apparently no such thing as pro-Christian atheism!

    *I can tell him with conviction that Jesus was the greatest man and the greatest teacher who ever lived, and an example to follow. When it comes to miracles I have to say "Some say that..." or "Many think that..." - this still seems to put me, the 'atheist', ahead of most of the leadership of the Church of England!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gays, ugly women, and emasculated men think they need feminism... go figure.

    Simon, the problem with your logic is you confuse Leftists with libertarians, who are actually interested in the freedom. Leftists are not interested in the freedom. They do not want anyone who disagrees with them to pursue their own interests, because they think anyone who disagrees with them is evil and should be stomped on with the full power of the state.

    "on the whole Internet there is apparently no such thing as pro-Christian atheism!"

    It is a contradiction in terms. Give it up. I used to be an atheist who thought Christians were good and ought to be respected. Since this approach doesn't get any respect from the Left or from the Christians, you might as well whole-heartedly join one camp or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OT:

    Mark often argues that Leftists have good intentions -- they advocate "personal autonomy" even though this has disastrous results in practice.

    Bruce Charlton notes we should assume bad intentions (and, of course, that the evil folks will lie about their intentions):

    http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2013/06/assuming-bad-intentions.html

    Some significant and dominant proportion of the Western ruling elites are basically evil in the sense of strategically seeking the destruction of good and good things, wherever and whenever they are found.

    If they see a good marriage, or a happy family, an innocent child, or a beautiful building, or encounter a man of honesty and integrity - then their response is to hate it and want to deface it or destroy that goodness: break-up that marriage, pop-the-bubble of that family and rub their noses in filth, tattoo that child, demolish and replace that building, and corrupt that man of integrity into acts that violate his conscience.

    If they encounter an argument which proves conclusively that their policies will certainly be widely destructive of good things and promoting of lies, ugliness and vice; they will inwardly nod, think 'thank you', and proceed with even greater determination having heard confirmation that this is a valid plan which will achieve its objectives.


    Thus, when Mark explains to the Left that their policies are destructive... the Left is pleased!

    ReplyDelete
  13. These people are unbelievable. And so absurd, too. I'll go through each picture with a little comment
    1st twerp: No, maybe if you tried to be a bit more masculine, surprise! You might just BE more masculine.
    2nd: How can you run the world if you can't even construct a simple sentence properly?
    3rd: Yeah, being lesbian is a sacred right; we must protect your right, even if it repulses us.
    4th: Oh, pardon me, I thought men and women were equal. 'scuse me.
    5th: I have no clue what his point is...
    6th: Maybe no one should be harassed BY a short skirt. Ever thought of that?
    7th: Ohhhhh, really? They do? Interesting.
    8th: Yep, feminism really helps out with that, doesn't it?
    9th: Ummm... ok. I doubt that since you look like a man.
    10th: What if a guy said that to you, but instead turned it around to say 'guys rule and girls suck'? Also, learn that if the thing already says 'because' then you don't need to write 'cos'. It's a little redundant and makes you look like an idiot ;)
    11th: Yep, we sure do. Well, actually, you are a man. You should act like one. And if you're all concerned about it, then why are you wearing masculine clothes with a manly haircut?
    12th: Someone call the circus. One of the people from their freak side-show escaped.
    13th: Feminism makes for a weak society that does not punish criminals properly. A criminal that feels safe because he won't get the daylights beat out of him for raping a woman is a dangerous criminal. So you are just helping things along by being an idiot feminist.
    14th: You shouldn't be allowed to feel safe. Go do stuff in private, where we don't know anything about it. Shut your mouth and leave decent people, who don't want to be confronted by filth, alone.
    15th: What a fool.

    Yep, this is our world. What a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What is truly awful is that these are supposed to be the brightest of the bright. With respect to them and their teachers I am certain that even in the depths of the 0-GCSE's council-estates such stupidity will not be found. [Bangs head against wall.]

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nah,

    I suspect the reason why we'll never agree on this is that you want to view individual autonomy in positive terms, as a good, and so when I argue that the problem with liberals is that they seek individual autonomy as the overriding good you assume that I'm putting a positive gloss on their motivations.

    Let me make a few points in regard to this:

    a) Autonomy is not wrong always and everywhere. My argument against liberals is that they make it an overriding good. Instead of seeking a balance, they ditch whatever impedes it, and the logic of this is destroys much of what is valuable in human society.

    b) You suggest that liberals would be pleased for me to inform them that they are acting for good motives, i.e. to further individual autonomy. But liberals already have in mind that they are pursuing what they hold to be moral aims. The average liberal believes that they stand for very moral sounding aims like freedom, equality, diversity, non-discrimination, openness, progress and so on.

    Liberals are the masters of a morally imbued politics - my drawing this morality back to first principles doesn't help them in this aim, rather it forces them to be less vague and to debate in intellectual terms.

    c) I agree with you that there is a strand within liberalism which is more openly based on nihilistic destruction. I have written articles on this, such as the following:

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/one-of-their-motives.html

    But I don't agree that this is the dominant strain. I work alongside middle-class Anglo left-liberals. These are people who in their personal lives are just as traditionalist as I am, and who are highly morally idealistic.

    Their moral imaginations have been captured by liberalism. The see life as a kind of morality play, with good guys and bad guys.

    They've been convinced by the moral categories of liberalism, that the good guys are whites who identify with the anti-racist struggles of non-whites and that the struggle to "liberate" women from the role of mother and wife is a progressive one (even as they themselves represent a massive unprincipled exception to this in their own lives, as they have quite conventional marriages).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Can't decide, they're all super-awesome. Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is horrible. Seeing them leaves me numb and sad.

    Last Wednesday night at church we used the game of basketball as a metaphor to explain to the teenage boys the ultimate Game of Life. Sinning is like playing badly

    (missing a shot, fouling, just all-around "sucking" at life). Just like in basketball, messing up is embarrassing. The difference is that when you sin, you embarrass

    yourself before all the forces of Heaven and Hell and God Himself.

    The people in these pictures aren't just playing the Game badly; I think it's debateable if they're playing at all. They're bouncing basketballs off their knees,

    tripping over their own pigeon toes and running head-long into the gym walls. Yet, there they stand front and center before the whole world cluelessly pumping their

    fists as if they've just made the winning basket.

    Hell, no doubt, finds this hysterically funny. I doubt Heaven is laughing, though. God must be cringing in embarrassment. They're just kids, and look how they've

    already ruined their lives so badly that, to my limited mind, it would take no minor miracle ever to restore them. I could cry tears of shame for them.

    Yeah, I get it. Absurdity is funny. And, hey, laughing at your enemy is highly effective (the Left has used it like an A-bomb against red-necks in my country).

    I just can't bring myself to do it for long in this case. The sexually dysfunctional are most to be pitied, for, as the Bible says, they are sinning against their own

    bodies, against themselves. They're in no shape to be anyone's enemy. They're on life support.

    If our object here is to shame them into repentance, I'd say being the object of embarrassed pity is even worse than being the butt of a joke.

    God have mercy on them. They're already in Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What a carnival freakshow.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Laura Elizabeth, I think #5 means that feminism provides him with a justification for acting effeminate.

    Isn't he right? So-called "Queer Theory" (the belief that your behavior should have nothing to do with your sex) is just an extension of feminism.

    Also, you wrote,

    12th: Someone call the circus. One of the people from their freak side-show escaped.

    I laughed out loud at your description. You nailed it. There is something deeply twisted about him. I got Roundup (a plant poison) on a rose bush in front of my house the other day, and some of the buds turned black. He looks kind of like that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Those pictures are gold. The second picture, the woman there looks like a witch.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The absolute best commentary from those boy drones is that he cannot be a man unless he is a feminist, while the female feminists claim him to be a nothing, an inkblot stain worthy of nothing more than abuse. Such incomprehensible stupidity and sheer adulterated ignorance is exclusively feminist. They reinvent the new meaning of cognitive dissonance. Especially "Cog"& "Nit".

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nah:
    "Simon, the problem with your logic is you confuse Leftists with libertarians, who are actually interested in the freedom. Leftists are not interested in the freedom. They do not want anyone who disagrees with them to pursue their own interests, because they think anyone who disagrees with them is evil and should be stomped on with the full power of the state."

    I didn't confuse Leftists with Libertarians. I agree with Mark - Left-Liberals value their particular conception of individual Autonomy (eg: professional careers), and seek to have the State subsidise it for those they approve of (eg women) while crushing anyone who wants something different (eg traditionally oriented women). Libertarians have their own beliefs re the need for Autonomy, but as they're not in charge I'm not going to worry about them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Seems harmless, but these types are the ones running western governments. With these characters in charge the true power, big business, can do as they please as long as they sign a diversity pledge every now and then. The greatest trick the corporatists ever pulled was convincing aspiring Leninists that diversity was more important than actual living standards.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I didn't confuse Leftists with Libertarians. I agree with Mark - Left-Liberals value their particular conception of individual Autonomy (eg: professional careers), and seek to have the State subsidise it for those they approve of (eg women) while crushing anyone who wants something different (eg traditionally oriented women).



    Your original statement makes little sense unless you think they are libertarians. Saying "I'm not ok with lesbians trying to stop heterosexual men or traditionally oriented women from articulating and pursuing their own interests likewise" if you think they are Leftists and not libertarians is about like saying "I'm not OK with water being wet" or "I'm not OK with sharks eating anything they can clamp their jaws on". Lesbians trying to stop hetero men from pursuing or even advocating their interests is a fundamental quality of lesbians. There are no other kinds of lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  25. you want to view individual autonomy in positive terms, as a good, and so when I argue that the problem with liberals is that they seek individual autonomy as the overriding good you assume that I'm putting a positive gloss on their motivations.

    More precisely, the problems are
    1. Leftists want everyone to think individual autonomy is a good, positive thing.
    2. Their definition of autonomy is different from mine and that of any normal person.
    3. Anyone who confuses their definition of individual autonomy with that of the normal definition is likely to give them credit for good intentions which they do not deserve.

    You suggest that liberals would be pleased for me to inform them that they are acting for good motives, i.e. to further individual autonomy.

    That's not what BGC was saying at all, and that's not why I quoted him. What he is saying is that when you explain, quite logically, that liberal policies will result in the destruction of everything you hold dear, the liberals will be pleased. To them, the deaths of your country, religion, race, and traditional family structure are all positive benefits of the policies they advocate, not hidden drawbacks. They are not going to say, "Aw shucks, Mark, we didn't think of that... guess we better stop!"

    But I don't agree that this is the dominant strain. I work alongside middle-class Anglo left-liberals. These are people who in their personal lives are just as traditionalist as I am, and who are highly morally idealistic.

    Judge them by the results of what they advocate, not their purported intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nah:
    "Your original statement makes little sense unless you think they are libertarians."

    I don't know why the heck you keep talking about 'libertarians'?! Libertarians are a tiny, powerless group and politically irrelevant.

    >> Saying "I'm not ok with lesbians trying to stop heterosexual men or traditionally oriented women from articulating and pursuing their own interests likewise" if you think they are Leftists and not libertarians is about like saying "I'm not OK with water being wet" or "I'm not OK with sharks eating anything they can clamp their jaws on". Lesbians trying to stop hetero men from pursuing or even advocating their interests is a fundamental quality of lesbians. There are no other kinds of lesbians."<<

    Political lesbians are mostly cultural Marxist type Leftists. I doubt this is inherent in the definition of lesbianism - women sexually attracted to women - and plenty of lesbians are not political lesbians. Example: cultural Marxist political lesbians typified by the fat, unhappy Jewish academic are allied with transgender ex-men, and want transgenders to be allowed to play women's sport. This will hurt the non-political butch sports playing lesbians, who don't want to be playing against men, but the cultural Marxist lesbians don't care, since their main goal is destruction they are happy to sacrifice the interests of their erstwhile 'sisters'.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nah:
    "hat he is saying is that when you explain, quite logically, that liberal policies will result in the destruction of everything you hold dear, the liberals will be pleased. To them, the deaths of your country, religion, race, and traditional family structure are all positive benefits of the policies they advocate, not hidden drawbacks. They are not going to say, "Aw shucks, Mark, we didn't think of that... guess we better stop!""

    There's a continuum from the cultural Marxists on the hard Left who knowingly want to destroy everything, through the lumpen middlling left-liberals who don't think about it much but do look forward to eg whites becoming a minority, to the 'soccer moms' on the soft-soft left who really wouldn't like the idea of our society being destroyed and just want to be on the 'nice' team. The hard Left sees the white race and western civilisation as a cancer to eliminate. On the soft-soft left they get upset if you talk about the bad stuff, and respond by saying things like "Oh, I'm sure that can't be right!"

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nah:
    "Lesbians trying to stop hetero men from pursuing or even advocating their interests is a fundamental quality of lesbians."

    There are plenty of lesbians who just want to *be* men, who often prefer male company, and who want to be treated as men by men as well as by women.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't know why the heck you keep talking about 'libertarians'?! Libertarians are a tiny, powerless group and politically irrelevant.

    Because your statement, "I generally think it's ok for people to pursue their own self-interest (within broad limits, eg no genocide) in the marketplace of ideas" is classic libertarian-speak.

    plenty of lesbians are not political lesbians.

    Perhaps by their own definition, but they are ALL political lesbians in the sense that they want to pursue their interests at the expense of others and force others to accept their definition of morality.

    There's a continuum

    Ultimately, they all hate you and want to destroy you. How actively they participate in that program and advocate it is not important.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Nah:
    "Because your statement, "I generally think it's ok for people to pursue their own self-interest (within broad limits, eg no genocide) in the marketplace of ideas" is classic libertarian-speak."

    OK, thanks - I think you're pretty silly, but at least that makes some kind of sense.

    ReplyDelete
  31. There's a continuum from the cultural Marxists on the hard Left who knowingly want to destroy everything, through the lumpen middlling left-liberals who don't think about it much but do look forward to eg whites becoming a minority, to the 'soccer moms' on the soft-soft left who really wouldn't like the idea of our society being destroyed and just want to be on the 'nice' team. The hard Left sees the white race and western civilisation as a cancer to eliminate. On the soft-soft left they get upset if you talk about the bad stuff, and respond by saying things like "Oh, I'm sure that can't be right!"

    In my experience, that's true. In fact, I believe that a fair number of liberals want something that can't be.

    They want to live forever as "white liberals". i.e. they want to live amongst other whites, but as a "morally enlightened" elite who promote policies that lead to open borders and the decline of a culture of marriage.

    Australian TV seems to be a bit different to UK and US TV in this regard. There has not been an embrace of diversity. The major Australian TV shows still feature what you might call "white inner city liberal community". And some of the earliest white flight from Melbourne was undertaken by white liberals, who, however, simply started promoting the same causes in their new, more homogeneous, communities.

    But if you were to tell such white liberals that their vision of life was contradictory and ultimately self-dissolving I think they'd quickly "dissociate". They wouldn't want to know. They want to cling to it and not think unpleasant thoughts.

    In their minds, there will always be a white liberal elite, living in respectable, mostly traditional marriages, leading society along liberal lines, combating injustice and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Because your statement, "I generally think it's ok for people to pursue their own self-interest (within broad limits, eg no genocide) in the marketplace of ideas" is classic libertarian-speak."

    OK, thanks - I think you're pretty silly, but at least that makes some kind of sense.


    You think it is silly that I think what you said is libertarian?

    The right to pursue one's "enlightened self-interest" (or "rational selfishness") within broad limits is the foundation of libertarian ethics. You do understand that, right?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ah, Cambridge. Home par excellence of heretical Protestant traitors in the 16th century. Home par excellence of republican traitors in the 17th century. Home par excellence of communist / sodomitic traitors in the 20th century. And now this. Why not simply blow the place up, preferably after locking all girlyboys and lesbians in the same inside lavatory beforehand?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mark:
    "In my experience, that's true. In fact, I believe that a fair number of liberals want something that can't be.

    They want to live forever as "white liberals". i.e. they want to live amongst other whites, but as a "morally enlightened" elite who promote policies that lead to open borders and the decline of a culture of marriage.

    Australian TV seems to be a bit different to UK and US TV in this regard. There has not been an embrace of diversity. The major Australian TV shows still feature what you might call "white inner city liberal community". And some of the earliest white flight from Melbourne was undertaken by white liberals, who, however, simply started promoting the same causes in their new, more homogeneous, communities.

    But if you were to tell such white liberals that their vision of life was contradictory and ultimately self-dissolving I think they'd quickly "dissociate". They wouldn't want to know. They want to cling to it and not think unpleasant thoughts.

    In their minds, there will always be a white liberal elite, living in respectable, mostly traditional marriages, leading society along liberal lines, combating injustice and so on."

    I think that's exactly right. I'm reminded of a US white liberal couple I know who fled Washington DC - they'd get up in the morning and find bullet holes in their car - for the nice safe enclave of Asheville, North Carolina - http://www.ashevillenc.gov/ - a little white liberal utopia surrounded by gun-toting rednecks who keep those liberals safe from the Diversity that makes DC hellish. Do you think the liberals of Ashville are grateful to the surrounding rednecks who keep Asheville safe? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Best is the gay stereotyping gays as knowing that stereotyping is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  36. randian said...

    "Well, the sad sack first guy who doesn't want to be held to a standard of masculinity because he doesn't think he'd pass muster gets points for honesty."

    I don't think that's what he meant. Read it literally.


    The problem is, for a man to be screwed in that sense, it cancels out his message.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.